Photonic
Ad astra!
It passed 98-1 in the Senate, fool.Patriot act was signed in by a republican.
Oh, why don't you tell us who wrote the damn thing sir?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It passed 98-1 in the Senate, fool.Patriot act was signed in by a republican.
Why does it matter who wrote it?
The Senate voted for it 98-1...Were there any opposition, there would've been more than the 1 vote against (Feingold).
Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out. The answer is generally "no."
Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out.
Imagine how much you'd be able to take out, if your contributions were in the market, instead of wasted on government spending.
The answer is generally "no."
Of course, otherwise there'd be no $11 trillion shortfall, IIRC.
Because government revenue just materializes out of thin air!
I'm almost fifty seven, and I've paid into it since I was seventeen.
Imagine, if you'd been able to put those 40 years of contributions into the stock market, how much you'd have now.
Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out. The answer is generally "no."
Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out.
Imagine how much you'd be able to take out, if your contributions were in the market, instead of wasted on government spending.
The answer is generally "no."
Of course, otherwise there'd be no $11 trillion shortfall, IIRC.
Liberty may be infringed directly by law or government force, or directly infringed by private non-government force, or indirectly infringed by an economy that denies people the means to the economic success that is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of liberty. (There is no liberty without property.) This brings up the third category: government action to promote economic equality and provide for social welfare.
When government action directly infringes liberty, the pro-liberty position is to oppose this. Thus, a pro-liberty advocate would oppose government action that tries to control people's sexual behavior unreasonably, denies reproductive rights, or violates the due process or other protections of the Bill of Rights, among other things.
Liberals and libertarians, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.
When government action restrains private power from infringing liberty, e.g. with regulations on the financial industry, protection of workers' rights, or environmental protection laws, the pro-liberty position is to support this.
Liberals, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives and libertarians adopt anti-liberty positions.
When government action attempts to narrow income gaps, raise wages, and provide for social welfare and safety nets, the pro-liberty position is to support this.
Again, liberals adopt pro-liberty positions in this context, while libertarians and conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.
Liberals are pro-liberty.
Conservatives are anti-liberty.
Libertarians are neither pro-liberty nor anti-liberty, but are, instead, anti-government, which they often seem to think means they are pro-liberty, and in some matters -- when the government really is the major threat to liberty -- they are. But not consistently.
Only liberals consistently defend liberty. And conservatives never do.
Among liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, only liberals are consistently pro-liberty across the board. Conservatives are consistently anti-liberty, and libertarians are neither one nor the other.
Liberty is the ability of ordinary people to live their lives without being under the domination of others, whether of government or of any private power.
Government action, w/r/t the issue of liberty, falls into three general categories. The first two categories are direct government infringement of liberty, and government protection of the people against the infringement of liberty by private power.
Liberty may be infringed directly by law or government force, or directly infringed by private non-government force, or indirectly infringed by an economy that denies people the means to the economic success that is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of liberty. (There is no liberty without property.) This brings up the third category: government action to promote economic equality and provide for social welfare.
When government action directly infringes liberty, the pro-liberty position is to oppose this. Thus, a pro-liberty advocate would oppose government action that tries to control people's sexual behavior unreasonably, denies reproductive rights, or violates the due process or other protections of the Bill of Rights, among other things.
Liberals and libertarians, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.
When government action restrains private power from infringing liberty, e.g. with regulations on the financial industry, protection of workers' rights, or environmental protection laws, the pro-liberty position is to support this.
Liberals, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives and libertarians adopt anti-liberty positions.
When government action attempts to narrow income gaps, raise wages, and provide for social welfare and safety nets, the pro-liberty position is to support this.
Again, liberals adopt pro-liberty positions in this context, while libertarians and conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.
Liberals are pro-liberty.
Conservatives are anti-liberty.
Libertarians are neither pro-liberty nor anti-liberty, but are, instead, anti-government, which they often seem to think means they are pro-liberty, and in some matters -- when the government really is the major threat to liberty -- they are. But not consistently.
Only liberals consistently defend liberty. And conservatives never do.
ShacklesOfBigGov said:Anytime you depend on the government for your welfare check, Health Care, Social Security Retirement, whether or not you have employment, etc. . . . . you don't have any liberty.
Not true. When you depend on some outside source, whether it's the government or an employer, for your livelihood, whether that represents a loss of liberty depends on whether that source could arbitrarily take it away. If they can, then you can be blackmailed by the source of your livelihood into obedience. In fact, though, the government CAN'T arbitrarily take away those funds. It must abide by the rule of law, which says among other things when and under what circumstances it MUST pay you these benefits. An employer, on the other hand, CAN arbitrarily take away your paycheck and leave you with no recourse.
Again, we see the basic libertarian fallacy: that government = non-liberty.
The rest of you have said nothing, and need not be answered.
Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out. The answer is generally "no."
Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out.
Imagine how much you'd be able to take out, if your contributions were in the market, instead of wasted on government spending.
The answer is generally "no."
Of course, otherwise there'd be no $11 trillion shortfall, IIRC.
I agree. SS should be run like a real pension fund and individuals should have some option to pull out their funds and manage it on their own.
Among liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, only liberals are consistently pro-liberty across the board. Conservatives are consistently anti-liberty, and libertarians are neither one nor the other.
Liberty is the ability of ordinary people to live their lives without being under the domination of others, whether of government or of any private power.
Government action, w/r/t the issue of liberty, falls into three general categories. The first two categories are direct government infringement of liberty, and government protection of the people against the infringement of liberty by private power.
Liberty may be infringed directly by law or government force, or directly infringed by private non-government force, or indirectly infringed by an economy that denies people the means to the economic success that is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of liberty. (There is no liberty without property.) This brings up the third category: government action to promote economic equality and provide for social welfare.
When government action directly infringes liberty, the pro-liberty position is to oppose this. Thus, a pro-liberty advocate would oppose government action that tries to control people's sexual behavior unreasonably, denies reproductive rights, or violates the due process or other protections of the Bill of Rights, among other things.
Liberals and libertarians, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.
When government action restrains private power from infringing liberty, e.g. with regulations on the financial industry, protection of workers' rights, or environmental protection laws, the pro-liberty position is to support this.
Liberals, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives and libertarians adopt anti-liberty positions.
When government action attempts to narrow income gaps, raise wages, and provide for social welfare and safety nets, the pro-liberty position is to support this.
Again, liberals adopt pro-liberty positions in this context, while libertarians and conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.
Liberals are pro-liberty.
Conservatives are anti-liberty.
Libertarians are neither pro-liberty nor anti-liberty, but are, instead, anti-government, which they often seem to think means they are pro-liberty, and in some matters -- when the government really is the major threat to liberty -- they are. But not consistently.
Only liberals consistently defend liberty. And conservatives never do.
BTW, its pretty hard to miss the fact that a tax - any tax - is an infringement on liberty. The OP seems to have missed this small fact.
Any attempt to take assets from one group of people and give those assets to another is an exercise of government power of one group of people over the other, and violates the liberty of those who have their wealth taken from them by government power.
So I should be able to benefit from the people of my country for free.
Sounds a bit like taking advantage.
That doesn't seem very patriotic.
Ah, it's all about the alleged freedom to hire someone to terminate the life of your unborn baby. Liberals define the stabbing of a full term baby in the back of the head and sucking out it's brain as "reproductive rights" and anybody who is against that type of manslaughter is seen in their minds as being against true liberty.
Medically a baby is not a baby until birth.
Tell that to the people on Death Row. You're against one thing you perceive as murder and for something that everyone else perceives as murder.
I would vote for the first conservative who doesn't have a "conservative, read - religious" social agenda.
I happen to enjoy conservative fiscal policy.
Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out. The answer is generally "no."
Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out.
Imagine how much you'd be able to take out, if your contributions were in the market, instead of wasted on government spending.
The answer is generally "no."
Of course, otherwise there'd be no $11 trillion shortfall, IIRC.
I agree. SS should be run like a real pension fund and individuals should have some option to pull out their funds and manage it on their own.
Only liberals aren't pro-liberty.
Conservatives want economic freedom but have no problem with the government interfering in people's social lives.
Liberals want social freedom but have no problem with the government interfering in people's economic lives.
Only libertarians are consistently pro-liberty, even if a disproportionate amount of them are batshit insane.
Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out.
Imagine how much you'd be able to take out, if your contributions were in the market, instead of wasted on government spending.
The answer is generally "no."
Of course, otherwise there'd be no $11 trillion shortfall, IIRC.
I agree. SS should be run like a real pension fund and individuals should have some option to pull out their funds and manage it on their own.
Government has never shown itself to be fiscally responsible or efficient, that much is a given. I would gladly like to have had the option years ago, to opt out of social security and invest the funds in my own retirement account.
All gun laws come from liberals
You know longer have the right to bear arms, b/c of liberals.
You can't smoke outside in NYC.
Free speech was limited by liberals. They call it "hate speech", but really it's anything they don't like.
Taxes are taken from the workers and given to those that don't work, by liberals.
I can keep going if you like.